Why Patriarchal Men Are Petrified of Birth Control — And Why It May Still Be a Battle 100 Years From Now.

Conservative bishops and Congressmen are fighting a rear-guard action against one of the most revolutionary changes in human history.

What’s happening in Congress this week, as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) bars any women from testifying at his so-called “religious freedom” hearings, is so familiar and expected that it hardly counts as news. The only thing surprising about it is the year: didn’t we all honestly think that by 2012, contraception would be a non-issue, and Congress wouldn’t make the mistake of leaving women out of conversations like this one?

Yes, we did. And the fact that we were wrong about that points to a deeper trend at work, one that needs a bit of long-term historical context put around it so we can really understand what’s going on. Let me explain.

When people look back on the 20th century from the vantage point of 500 years on, they will remember the 1900s for three big things.

One was the integrated circuit, and (more importantly) the Internet and the information revolution that it made possible. When our descendants look back, they’re likely to see this as an all-levels, all-sectors disruption on the scale of the printing press — but even more all-encompassing. (Google “the Singularity” for scenarios on just how dramatic this might be.)

The second was the moon landing, a first-time-ever milestone in human history that our galaxy-trotting grandkids five centuries on may well view about the same way we see Magellan’s first daring circumnavigation of the globe.

But the third one is the silent one, the one that I’ve never seen come up on anybody’s list of Innovations That Changed The World, but matters perhaps more deeply than any of the more obvious things that usually come to mind. And that’s the mass availability of nearly 100% effective contraception. Far from being a mere 500-year event, we may have to go back to the invention of the wheel or the discovery of fire to find something that’s so completely disruptive to the way humans have lived for the entire duration of our remembered history.

Until the condom, the diaphragm, the Pill, the IUD, and all the subsequent variants of hormonal fertility control came along, anatomy really was destiny — and all of the world’s societies were organized around that central fact. Women were born to bear children; they had no other life options. With a few rebellious or well-born exceptions (and a few outlier cultures that somehow found their way to a more equal footing), the vast majority of women who’ve ever lived on this planet were tied to home, dependent on men, and subject to all kinds of religious and cultural restrictions designed to guarantee that they bore the right kids to the right man at the right time — even if that meant effectively jailing them at home.

♦◊♦

Our biology reduced us to a kind of chattel, subject to strictures that owed more to property law than the more rights-based laws that applied to men. Becoming literate or mastering a trade or participating in public life wasn’t unheard-of; but unlike the men, the world’s women have always had to fit those extras in around their primary duty to their children and husband — and have usually paid a very stiff price if it was thought that those duties were being neglected.

Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies, our labor, our affections, and our futures. They got to make the rules, name the gods we would worship, and dictate the terms we would live under. In most cultures, they had the right to sex on demand within the marriage, and also to break their marriage vows with impunity — a luxury that would get women banished or killed. As long as pregnancy remained the defining fact of our lives, they got to run the whole show. The world was their party, and they had a fabulous time.

Thousands of generations of men and women have lived under some variant of this order — some variations more benevolent, some more brutal, but all similar enough in form and intention — in all times and places, going back to where our memory of time ends. Look at it this way, and you get a striking perspective on just how world-changing it was when, within the span of just a few short decades in the middle of the 20th century, all of that suddenly ended. For the first time in human history, new technologies made fertility a conscious choice for an ever-growing number of the planet’s females. And that, in turn, changed everything else.

With that one essential choice came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men — education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.

That one fact, that one technological shift, is now rocking the foundations of every culture on the planet — and will keep rocking it for a very long time to come. It is, over time, bringing a louder and prouder female voice into the running of the world’s affairs at every level, creating new conversations and new priorities in areas where the men long ago thought things were settled and understood. It’s bending our understanding of what sex is about, and when and with whom we can have it — a wrinkle that created new frontiers for gay folk as well. It may well prove to the be the one breakthrough most responsible for the survival of the human race, and the future viability of the planet.

But perhaps most critically for us right now: mass-produced, affordable, reliable contraception has shredded the ages-old social contracts between men and women, and is forcing us all (willing or not) into wholesale re-negotiations on a raft of new ones.

And, frankly, while some men have embraced this new order— perhaps seeing in it the potential to open up some interesting new choices for them, too — a global majority is increasingly confused, enraged, and terrified by it. They never wanted to be at this table in the first place, and they’re furious to even find themselves being forced to have this conversation at all.

♦◊♦

It was never meant to happen. It never should have happened. And they’re doing their damndest to put a stop to it all, right now, and make it go away.

It’s this rage that’s driving the Catholic bishops into a frenzied donnybrook fight against contraception — despite the very real possibility that this fight could, in the end, damage their church even more fatally than the molestation scandal did. As the keepers of a 2000-year-old enterprise — one of the oldest continuously-operating organizations on the planet, in fact — they take the very long view. And they understand, better than most of us, just how unprecedented this development is in the grand sweep of history, and the serious threat it poses to everything their church has stood for going back to antiquity. (Including, very much, the more recent doctrine of papal infallability.)

That same frantic panic over the loss of the ancient bargain also lies that the core of the worldwide rash of fundamentalist religions. Modern industrial economies have undermined the authority of men both in the public sphere and in the private realms; and since they’re limited in how far they can challenge it in the external world, they’ve turned women’s bodies into the symbolic battlefield on which their anxieties over this play out. Drill down to the very deepest center of any of these movements, and you’ll find men who are experiencing this change as a kind of personal annihilation, a loss of masculine identity so deep that they are literally interpreting it as the end of the world. (The first rule of understanding apocalyptic movements is this: If someone tells you the world is ending, believe them. Because for them, it probably is.)

They are, above everything else, desperate to get their women back under firm control. And in their minds, things will not be right again until they’re assured that the girls are locked up even more tightly, so they will never, ever get away like that again.

♦◊♦

If you’re a woman of childbearing age in the US, you’ve had access to effective contraception your entire fertile life; and odds are good that your mother and grandmother did, too. If you’re a heterosexual man of almost any age, odds are good that you also enjoy a lifetime of opportunities for sexual openness and variety that your grandfathers probably couldn’t have imagined — also thanks entirely to good contraception. From our individual personal perspectives, it feels like we’ve had this right, and this technology, forever. We take it so completely for granted that we simply cannot imagine that it could ever go away. It leads to a sweet complacency: birth control is something that’s always been there for us, and we’re rather stunned that anybody could possibly find it controversial enough to pick a fight over.

But if we’re wise, we’ll keep our eyes on the long game, because you can bet that those angry men are, too. The hard fact is this: We’re only 50 years into a revolution that may ultimately take two or three centuries to completely work its way through the world’s many cultures and religions. (To put this in perspective: it was 300 years from Gutenberg’s printing press to the scientific and intellectual re-alignments of the Enlightenment, and to the French and American revolutions that that liberating technology ultimately made possible. These things can take a loooong time to work all the way out.) Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will, in all likelihood, still be working out the details of these new gender agreements a century from now; and it may be a century after that before their grandkids can truly start taking any of this for granted.

That sounds daunting, though I don’t mean it to be. What I do want is for those of us, male and female, whose lives have been transformed for the better in this new post-Pill order to think in longer terms. Male privilege has been with us for — how long? Ten thousand years? A hundred thousand? Contraception, in the mere blink of an eye in historical terms, toppled the core rationale that justified that entire system. And now, every aspect of human society is frantically racing to catch up with that stunning fact. Everything will have to change in response to this — families, business, religion, politics, economics…everything.

We’re in this catch-up process for the long haul. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be surprised to be confronted by large groups of well-organized men (and their female flunkies, who are legion) marshaling their vast resources to get every last one of Pandora’s frolicking contraception-fueled demons back into the box. And we need to accept and prepare for the likelihood that much of the history of this century, when it’s finally written, will be the story of our children’s ongoing struggles against the organized powers that intend to seize back the means of our liberation, and turn back the clock to the way things used to be.

What we’ve learned these past few weeks is: the fight for contraception is not only not over — it hasn’t even really started yet.

About AlterNet

164

Leave a Reply

>Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the >world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies, >our labor, our affections, and our futures. Oooh, close, but… WRONG! Women gained full economic and social control over men’s bodies, men’s labor, affections, and futures. All the fruit’s of a man’s labor, were a woman’s. A man had to provide for his wife and children, (notice the order, wife first, children second) to the point of dying before she did; he risked his life… Read more »

@John Anderson Oh I’m all for banning MGC. In the U.S. we have placed the secular above the religious in many instances…and MGC should be one of those. It causes harm – it should be banned. If a man wants to have it done to himself after he’s reached 18, then by all means…but parents shouldn’t be able to force their babies to undergo the procedure. (And, ya know, side note but I feel I gotta mention that the place where I first learned about how horrible MGC actually is – a gender studies class at my liberal university taught… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

You know I’ve been dreading and looking forward to this conversation. I suggested moving It to a new thread because I thought that if we discussed the morality of incest, we’d probably get a bunch of people joining in. Anyway, I had never considered that incest could be alright. I always assumed that it was wrong so you bring up a good point. The first thing I would check is consent. That’s why I was asking your opinion on age of consent and whether a person, who is dependent on their parents and family can actually consent. I’ve also been… Read more »

No worries about disjointed thoughts…I totally get it. There was a really interesting article I saw about marrying your cousin. It’s interesting because it sort of just gives out information without being biased on one side or the other. It’s different than a parent-child sexual relationship, but similar. With regards to limiting the number of children a sperm donor could father, yeah I guess I could sort of see that. I mean kind of…I doubt it is actually a problem and more it’s something someone freaked out about as a possibility. I don’t think it’s to do with reproductive rights,… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

I kind of like 18 too. People mature more slowly these days. The economy is different requiring a more information and interpersonal skill set and people live longer. Since 18 is the age that we set for a;; other adult activities like drinking, it’s a good place to set the age. Illinois has a tiered system. I think it’s 16 as long as the older person is no more than 5 years older than the younger, person and 18 is legal regardless of the age difference. I find the debate on age interesting because I had two(?) distinct experiences where… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

Now that I have some coherent thought on the topic of incest, I have come to a preliminary position on it. I start with what would be wrong with any sex? That would be rape or if one person doesn’t consent or can’t reasonably give consent. The age of consent should be at least 18, since people mature slower than they did in the past. There is some biological evidence to suggest that it should be later. I’ve heard that there is a change in our brains when we reach I believe it’s 25 that restrains us from engaging in… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@ Heather

“Oh I’m all for banning MGC. In the U.S.”

Glad to hear it. I’m only thinking of the U.S. right now. I haven’t reached the level where I routinely consider other countries. I guess it’s like feminism. MRAs are concerned about the U.S. and the west first. I think it’s important that feminists are more vocal about supporting a ban. I think that it fails to get the traction in feminist circles because feminists, who support a ban, are coy about it.

I think a discussion of banning either MGC or FGC in other countries would be a different conversation…because then I don’t know. I’d still say ban it, personally, because I consider it harmful. But…well that’s just totally not taking into account the way an individual country/culture feels about it. But yeah, in the states, totally should be banned. It’s odd…I don’t know that us feminists who are against it are coy about it, so much as we just don’t think to mention it. This goes back to the men in feminism article…but if it’s mostly/only women working in feminism, then… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Jenna

Good point Heather, when people (often men but not always) start talking about rights that are neglected for males, transgendered, and non-gendered individuals in the feminist movement, it is not because “the feminists” are blindly pushing an agenda of female domination- it is because these groups are underrepresented in the feminist movement. Feminism is about equality for ALL genders- concerns and issues should come from every single gender. MGC probably hasn’t been brought up frequently in feminist circles because it is an issue that men are primarily concerned with (though it obviously affects females as well ex. mothers), and men… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

Many of the people who post on GMP were feminists or in my case an almost feminist, but were turned off by the response many feminists had to men’s issues. It may have been the particular circle of feminists that particular person encountered that convinced them that feminism isn’t for them. It may have been that particular day or topic. I think that many men here realize that individual feminists may have different opinions on what feminism is. It’s great that you believe that the goal of feminism is equality. Hopefully, you and Heather could convince the other feminists that… Read more »

“I will continue to dialogue with feminists, but will not count myself among them.”

That, to me, is more important anyway. 🙂

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Archy

“Men wanting to raise awareness on this issue of MGC would find support in the feminist community, because it always truly comes down to human rights and overall equality.”
Where can they go to get this support? Is there a website full of egalitarian feminists? I’ve been on a mission to find one site like this where a man could mention male issues and not get blasted out. noseriouslywhataboutthemenz is probably the only one I can think of, are there any others that will talk about both genders?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

I don’t want to get too picky, but

“in all likelihood, still be working out the details of these new gender agreements a century from now;”

If they’re new gender agreements does that mean that the current situation was negotiated? If it was negotiated then doesn’t that mean that patriarchy is a shame? Their Fruedian slip is showing. They have daddy issues.

All gender/class/ethnic/etc inequalities were/are negotiated. Society changes, and as it changes different groups obtain and lose a variety of benefits and responsibilities. As people become unhappy with the status quo, they rebel/revolt/have a revolution and change things. Or sometimes they make signs and hold a protest. But the idea is the same. We are always redefining and renegotiating our gender roles (and other identities). And with regards to gender, neither men nor women have ever been completely without agency. It was just that the social spheres in which men and women had agency in have shifted….been renegotiated. Even in a… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Jenna

“They have daddy issues”—-This is the exact sentence you should never say if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

Every once in a while, I feel the need to say something silly, but patriarchy does come from patriarch, which is somehow related to father. Pater in Latin is father. It probably would help if you knew that I believe that the initial gender constructs were negotiated and not imposed by men. Having the person who could feed the children stay with them and the stronger person do the hunting/gathering just made sense. Women support “the patriarchy” because they originally agreed to it. Feminists tend to not believe this. Their insistence on believing t=something that doesn’t make sense is where… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Jenna

I did take a couple Latin courses, so I am aware of the root of the word patriarchy. I also think you are generalizing with the word “feminists”- I take the word “feminist” for the first webster definition which is equality between all genders (which I would include as men, women, transgendered, androgynous, and non-gendered). Feminism is about getting rid of oppression for all genders- the “man box”, the perfect housewife, the obligatory motherhood, the strict gender roles and so on. Women support these traditional roles as much as men, and have done so since the beginning of time. It… Read more »

Alright so on the patriarchy side of things, I’d like to bring something up. With regards to the Congressional hearings, it seems really strange that everyone involved were men. Now if we were discussing contraception in general, then that wouldn’t be so bizarre. But those hearings were about Catholic-affiliated institutions employee insurance paying for female contraception. Surely they could have had a few women come in…if only because not having women involved brought up all sorts of controversy. The fact that they didn’t involve women, I think points to two possibilities. Possibility One: They didn’t realize how bad it would… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

Heather. If it’s to be a priority, name a current priority which will be defunded to take care of BC. Defense doesn’t count because it’s too easy for lib/prog to BS about, as long as they have the freedom to do so, of course.
Something else.

Ask your colleagues if they think the man hours necessary to build Gobleki Tepe could have been supported by hunting and gathering, or do we need to rejigger the beginning of the neolithic.

Well if I had a copy of the amount of federal dollars that goes toward insurances paying for contraception, and a copy of the federal budget, and a degree in economics…I’d tell you. But without all of that, my first answer wouldn’t be defence…my first answer would be pork.

But that ignores the fact that the arguments made in the Congressional hearings about this had nothing to do with cost…and everything to do with religion influencing policy.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

Oh,yeah. When I was in college, there was a slow-dance song called “True Love Waits” . Waits for what has escaped me at the moment and probably forever.
My guess is that forming social bonds and finding true love, and whatnot, will survive waiting until somebody’s made a run to the drugstore. If it won’t, you have something else going on and expecting the rest of us to pay for it is nuts.
Your post still seems as if you think there is an unlimited supply of money and only mean-spiritedness is the issue here.

I think you’re misunderstanding me a bit here, Richard. I get that we, as a society, have agreed to pay for libraries. I’m saying I think contraception should also be something we, as a society, agree to pay for. I don’t think that having insurance cover it will make people use it more. Of course not. As you point out, people will or won’t use it regardless. Heck, you can get free condoms, but there are still plenty of people who don’t use them. That’s not the issue. The issue is that there are people who want to use it… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

Heather. We, as a society, have decided to pay for libraries through taxes. I don’t want to play “I don’t get this”, but just this once, for fun: Are you threatening society with massive unplanned pregnancies if you don’t get free contraception? Gosh, that was great. Now. Contraception is easily available. If you happen to be short, it isn’t because of money, but of lack of planning.The insurance company isn’t going to be following you around, delivering your pills, nor following you on a date in case your date forgot his condom. History: The original concept of the Health Maintenance… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

The way out of poverty generally consists of doing things the old, middle-class way. Defer gratification and all that old, stodgy stuff. Individual circumstances make for individual outcomes, but the point is the way a woman can practically guarantee to be poor is to mess up Williams’ sequence. It is possible to be poor and have followed Williams’ sequence, but the chances are slimmer. Which is the point. Now, I used to be in am semi-retired in, the insurance business. Here’s the deal about insurance and contraception. Contraception, as with first-dollar coverage for scrips and office visits, and routine testing,… Read more »

“Both the use and the purchase of the contraception are done at the free choice of the individual, a concept which terrifies progressives.” Well but see…here’s where you’re losing me. Are you saying anything that is done out of free choice should be up to individuals to pay for? So public libraries shouldn’t exist…because reading is a choice? Education should all be private, because it’s a choice? Like…you see what I’m getting at? Some things are a choice, but it benefits society to make them easily obtainable. In my opinion, contraception is one of those things. If it’s more easily… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

Heather. I’m not saying anybody should do anything. Williams’ sequence is how you can avoid being poor if you want to have a kid. Mess up the sequence and you’re almost certain to be poor. If you want to throw college in there, do so. But don’t forget the sequence of marriage and then kids. But it’s a free country. Do what you like, but if the most likely thing, the most predictable thing, happens, have the grace not to complain you’ve been treated shabbily. Birth control is not a matter of poor people trying to suck money from non-poor… Read more »

What I’m asking, is what all of this has to do with the Catholic church not wanting to pay for birth control for employees at religious-affiliated organizations? I mean, yeah unemployed people can buy insurance, but it’s expensive. And if you can’t afford it there’s Medicaid…but only if you’re poor enough. My sister and her husband both make too much for Medicaid, and yet not enough to buy insurance…oh and their jobs don’t provide insurance. There is this middle, where you’re making too much for food stamps, and Medicaid, and yet not making enough to pay for hormonal contraception. And… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

Walter Williams, I believe it was, said the way for a woman to avoid poverty is to finish high school, get a job, get married, and have a kid, in that order. Mess up the order and you’re very likely to be poor. Follow the sequence and the likelihood a woman will be poor is under ten percent. Of course, she could avoid the kid part altogether and have a pretty good chance, with or without marriage. However, if she messes up the order, or skips the marriage thing, she’s likely to be poor. Poor people don’t generate tax revenues.… Read more »

Okay I’m really unable to see what you’re trying to say with this comment. That women should get a job after high school and not go to college? That they should get married and have kids? That birth control is a way that poor people are trying to suck money from non-poor people? Except that when it comes to insurance paying for it, you have to have a job in order to have insurance. So really it’s working people that this would affect the most.

Plus, how old is William’s sequence?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

BC, or prophylaxis, extends the number of encounters, on average, before the folks involved get either pregnant or infected.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

poester99

Very reliable male birth control will be near as big a revolution.
No more being held hostage by state power to facilitate the choices of another supposedly adult human being. Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.

I think both genders should have access to great BC. And currently men can wear condoms and communicate with partners about mutually assured BC, sexual acts that don’t lead to pregnancy but are pleasurable. I’m not sure why more of that doesn’t happen.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

poester99

Because there is not enough trust. 8) Men on average trust women too much and women don’t trust men enough according to the actual factual risk. The average man is much more likely than the average woman to be a victim of violence, for instance. The “creepy” guy everyone avoids is hugely more likely to be just social inept instead of an axe murderer, or rapist, as is imagined. In fact women tend to heavily over-estimate risk in just about all situations and for men it is the usually the opposite. It would be better if the information were more… Read more »

What does that have to do with condoms though? Men want control over whether they impregnate someone yes? They could trust a woman, or they could make sure to communicate, see her pills etc, or they could also use one of the oldest BC forms for men. Or the latter two together.
Less about trust and more about having control yes? Or am I missing something?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

I don’t think you are missing anything.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

poester99

Condoms are not “effective” birth control, considering the probabilities. Communication is great, but trust is more important, aside from all the other reasons, no man in this day and age is permitted to “walk away” from a pregnancy. Sterilization is effective but a ridiculously invasive option for a man (especially a young man) who actually wants to become a father at some point. If there is limited trust then control becomes all important, and not control over another (which ends up happening anyways) but control over your own future. Women have full control over their fertility and thus over their… Read more »

Do you mean it won’t look like today’s America in a few gens? It didn’t look like America today, 100 years ago either. Things will change, they just will. They always do. As for condoms not being 100 effective. No, they aren’t. But they are available NOW. So too are bjs, manual, and actual conversation with a woman who may also not want to get pregnant. Should there be other bc on the market for men of COURSE! Though it appears Santorum and his friends don’t want there to be! Are things messed up? Surely they are, and in this… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

8ball

See her pills? Call me a cynic, but I dont think most women would react favorably to their man wanting to keep track of whether they took their pill

Probably not, but we aren’t talking about the ideal are we? And men probably wouldn’t look favorably on having to give proof they have RISG or a pill either.
Couples have to communicate together if they want pregnancy to be avoided. Have to.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

Just seeing her pills doesn’t ensure that she takes them. I think you’re right in the sense that part of the issue of control is that I don’t have to trust. I think some of the concern is that he might not want children and she might, but says she doesn’t. Assuming the existence of male BC, she still has the option of abortion if he lies. He has no such option.

And I would say just cause he says he has the BC for men, doesn’t mean he really does unless he can prove it/that he has it/takes it. If I met a man and he was like..I”m on the pill and I didn’t know him? I’d still insist on condoms for one of us. And no one enjoys getting an abortion. I’d much rather not get pregnant. Depending where in the US you live it can be hard to actually get that abortion. Some states have one clinic period with doctors that fly in. I think that’s Montana? So…you’ve got… Read more »

This is a bit off topic…but I’m glad you brought this up. So often here at GMP I’ve been hearing the fact that abortion is an option as if it were an easy option. Even if we ignore the emotional heartache involved, on a purely practical level it can be quite difficult. There are all sorts of artificial barriers created to prevent women from getting abortions, not to mention the social stigma associated with it. I believe Montana is the state where there’s only one clinic in the entire state. And I believe it was there that they also recently… Read more »

@Heather “This is a bit off topic” I love tangents. It’s a great way to spark conversation and it’s great how GMP allows the, I think it helps that the community is also mature enough not to use it to derail. There is a saying that a minor medical procedure is a procedure performed on someone else. If I understand correctly most feminists don’t support abortion as contraception, but approach It the way they approach MGC. Let’s eliminate the societal pressures for getting an abortion like providing affordable child care, but I suspect that even if every societal pressure was… Read more »

I personally approach abortion quite differently than MGC. I’m against MGC, personally. I recognize it stems from different cultural values and mores than FGC, but I still think it’s wrong. It’s causing physical harm. For more on my opinions regarding culture and harm see: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/ (self-plug there. hehehe). I am pro-choice because I am for choice…for me it is all about bodily autonomy. As for when the fetus becomes a human and has rights…hell I’ve no idea. Well not no idea…I know that my opinion is that in the first term, I don’t think a fetus should be given personhood.… Read more »

Oh and by “it’s freaking tough,” I mean it’s tough (difficult) to figure out out. I didn’t mean it’s tough, as in like too bad suck it up, or something.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@Heather “Eh…I’d include modern ideas of beauty, female sexuality, and porn into that mix.” You’ve probably looked at more feminist stuff than I so I’m not challenging the point. I’ve just never seen it. I’ve encountered discussions on feminist porn before, but I’ve never encountered feminists who say that porn is un-feminist. I’ve heard a debate over terms, where some feminists equate porn with that portion of erotica that “demeans” women with the rest being classified as erotic. Of course then porn is un-feminist by definition. I don’t see how faux rape of a man should be classified as different… Read more »

Hang on a moment…you don’t have a problem with MGC? I’m against it. When I say it stems from different cultural beliefs…well yeah it does. But it’s still removing part of a boy’s body without his consent and without a medical reason. I think it’s wrong. It’s harmful. It’s interesting you bring up incest…because that’s another one where I try to take a more practical approach. If there is an issue of rape (regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman doing the raping), then it’s not okay. If there’s an issue of the woman involved getting pregnant and… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@Heather “Hang on a moment…you don’t have a problem with MGC?” Actually, I’m for banning MGC. Every feminist I’ve met except for two or three was personally against it, but I haven’t met any feminists yet who want to stop anyone else from doing it. If I remember correctly, someone on GMP said that she would defer to the father wishes. Changing your mind from personally against to supporting a ban on MGC is what I was trying to convince you of. David Koresh did not actually wait until his daughters reached the age of consent as legally defined in… Read more »

@ John Anderson “I don’t believe in reproductive rights since a man raped by a woman can’t legally force her to abort or carry the child to term and therefore has no reproductive rights.” When I read that I was confused- do you mean you don’t believe that full reproductive rights currently exist because there it is not equal between men and women as to the control over the development (or the halting of) a fetus? Or did you mean there shouldn’t be such thing as reproductive rights? Need a little clarification please! Also, as far as no feminists standing… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@ Jenna Hi, when I said no reproductive rights, I meant as a standalone right. I define reproductive rights as the right to have a child or to not have a child. I looked at a very specific narrow incident where a woman would become impregnated by raping a man. Because he was raped, he had no choice in impregnating her and had no choice in whether to reproduce. Since he can’t compel her to abort, he has no control over his reproduction in such a case, he has no reproductive rights. Men also can’t compel women to carry a… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@Julie “I think in the best case, he’s got the BC. She’s got the BC. And if they are strangers? Some barrier method is used to prevent STDs.” I agree Abortion is not an easy choice. I’m not sure that it should be. Feminists For Life doesn’t think that it’s a feminist position. Abortion is the only topic where I’ve ever heard feminists criticize other feminists as being un-feminist. Ultimately, it is a choice or option and though unpleasant, if it were me, I’d rather have the option than not. I think it would be silly for a woman to… Read more »

“Abortion is the only topic where I’ve ever heard feminists criticize other feminists as being un-feminist.”

Eh…I’d include modern ideas of beauty, female sexuality, and porn into that mix.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

Julie — I’ve already agreed with you, below, so please take this comment in that spirit. Condoms just don’t provide adequate control. Even in combination with a non-pharmaceutical like a diaphragm. If you disagree, fine, but my oldest child was conceived just that way. IUDs are effective, relatively safe and reversible. The pill and its offspring, implants and shots, are effective, relatively safe and reversible for women. We guys just don’t have that level of control. And, yeah, sometimes my lady wants it in her. She will communicate that very clearly to me. She doesn’t take kindly to my saying… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

poester99

Yes, which men don’t have. Because they have to trust, another flawed human being which may in fact *only* have her best interests in mind.
Effective male birth control makes trust irrelavant, but we are not there now.

This is true for both parties, actually. Condoms may not be 100 percent and I know that men seem to hate them, but they can wear them. They can also wait on penetrative intercourse (which is annoying too, I know) until adequate trust and BC is in place. And if he is on male BC she needs to have proof of that too. Both do. So that means trust, communication and control on both parties part.

I don’t disagree that condoms are less than ideal. Just that you have them currently available. Also they prevent many STDs. Call me cynical? But my guess it’s less about feminism that RISIG hasn’t happened and more about cashflow. It’s a one time deal that lasts 10 years yeah? Where’s the money for big Pharma? My pills are a monthly deal, condoms are a daily deal, sponges, etc are daily deals.$$$$$ How does a man “prove” to a woman he’s been RISIGd? How does a woman prove to a man she took that pill or had a ligation? (my mother… Read more »

I totally agree with Julie here. And though this is about birth control, I’d like to highlight what Julie mentioned. A barrier of some sort is needed to prevent STIs, whether that’s a condom, a diaphragm, a cap, etc. At the moment condoms are easily obtained, well known, and relatively easy to use. So I think that’s a big reason why they are pushed.

“Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.”

Alright so I’m with Julie on the rest of your dialogue here, but I just had to comment on this. Women do get told to ‘keep it in their pants,’ except the phrase is ‘keep your legs shut.’ Our society puts shame on people who have sex, whether they are male, female, trans, straight, bi, etc.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

8ball

Except women get told to “keep their legs shut.” by right wing religious conservatives. Men get told to keep it in their pants by supposedly progressive, sex-positive, pro-choice liberals.

Don’t believe me? Try bringing up the idea that a man should be able to walk away from parental obligations (same as a woman can) on a feminist blog. Watch how fast parroting of pro-life arguments starts.

The pro-life stuff is cause the kid is actually there. Needing parents (or resources which may not be available). The sex positive pro choice people I know want both men and women to take BC/talk/communicate so that that kid doesn’t wind up here in the middle of a freaking mess. You don’t have to keep it in your pants at all! Have fun with it! Mutually communicated, STD protected, fully comprehending fun! Right now we have an economic system that is for shite. We have few safety nets for single parents to truly thrive (not to mention we place a… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

SomeDude

The kid is there by the woman’s choice. Once that decision is in place it becomes all about the child (or about what the woman wants for the child).

I don’t see how a single parent can be expected to thrive unless they are extremely wealthy or have an extensive support network. The safety net is supposed to catch you if you fall not enable a woman to go it alone because she wants to be a mother.

Well, other countries have more socialized systems and seem to manage. Problems yes, but we have other ones. Then if the single parent is alone, no safety net, we talk child support.

Avoiding an unwanted pregnancy from the beginning should be the goal then.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

Julie — So, I’ve been doing my best to be positive about what you say, but with all due respect you just don’t have a clue about the male experience. My experience is that a man who says no to a woman who wants PIV sex never gets a second chance from her. That is just the way it is. If you have a problem with that, you need to work on women, not men. None of your repetitive extolling of the wonders of oral sex or manual sex changes the reality that women are extreeeemeeelllyyy spoiled about getting the… Read more »

“My experience is that a man who says no to a woman who wants PIV sex never gets a second chance from her. That is just the way it is. If you have a problem with that, you need to work on women, not men. None of your repetitive extolling of the wonders of oral sex or manual sex changes the reality that women are extreeeemeeelllyyy spoiled about getting the sex they want when they want it.” I cannot speak to this for every man, nor for every woman. Only based on my experience and the experiences of people that… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Jenna

@JustAMan, I know that your post confuses the problems currently facing men in the realm of sexual health and what @JulieGillis is talking about, and she has sorted out these confusions very nicely (way to go), I did take issue with this one statement: “No woman is ever going to allow a man to have any input into that decision.” As a woman who has experienced an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy in my teens with my long term boyfriend, his opinion and input into the decision was my number once influence during this tough time. He helped me lay out… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

8ball

We live in a world where legal precedent states that a man’s ejaculate is a “gift” and what his partner chooses to do with it after the fact is none of his affair. If she so chooses to imregnate herself with it, he is still legally oligated to provide child support. It doesn’t matter if he wore a condom, was raped, was underage, or even had PIV sex. If that kid has your DNA (and sometimes even if it doesn’t) Yu’re on the hook. This is not a standard women are held to. Women are allowed to bail out at… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Jordan

–As first posted by 8ball “We live in a world where legal precedent states that a man’s ejaculate is a “gift” and what his partner chooses to do with it after the fact is none of his affair. If she so chooses to imregnate herself with it, he is still legally oligated to provide child support. It doesn’t matter if he wore a condom, was raped, was underage, or even had PIV sex. If that kid has your DNA (and sometimes even if it doesn’t) Yu’re on the hook. This is not a standard women are held to. Women are… Read more »

What I’m trying to say, 8ball, is that actually mainstream society is telling both men and women conflicting messages about sex. It’s cool/normal/expected to have sex. But good people don’t have too much sex, and don’t have sex while they’re in high school. And coming from a place where there were plenty of unwanted pregnancies (both by teenagers and by adults), I can tell you that a lot of the reaction from the community was “she should have kept her legs shut,” right along with, “he should have kept it in his pants.” And I think both of those sentiments… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

Heather and Julie — My question for you is very simple. Should men have equal reproductive rights with women or not? A woman has the unilateral right to decide to terminate her child rearing and child support obligations. She can do this by terminating a pregnancy. She can also do this after birth in most states by unilaterally turning the child in at a police station, fire station, hospital emergency room, and walking away, no questions asked. No need for paternal approval or even notice to the father. In your opinion, should a man have the right to unilaterally terminate… Read more »

In theory? And it’s a sad, difficult theory. Probably so. Not being a legal expert in either side of the field, I feel pretty ill equipped to comment on what happens to the child and frankly there comes a point where the child takes precedence if he or she is brought into the world. The baby is who I empathize with at the stage. I think there are already ways to terminate parental rights aren’t there? I think we have a completely fucked up system both in terms of limited BC technologies for men but also lack of adequate social… Read more »

Also, for that theory to hold? I think there would need to be some economic overhaul. It’s more than just man vs woman here. It’s about (for me anyway) what does our country value? Does our country value a system that provides basic needs for its citizenry or does it believe in this hard core you are on your own POV? I don’t stand for a country that advocates against reproductive rights on the one hand, but then kicks parents to the curb on the other. It feels bipolar to me. The whole thing is messed up and I can’t… Read more »

I agree with what Julie is writing here. Look, my own personal point of view is a bit removed from these circumstances…these are situations I will never find myself in. But from where I sit, does a man deserve equal paternal rights? Yes. Ideally, in a world of chocolate rivers and candy trees, in order to make any decisions regarding adoption or abortion, both parents would need to agree. But the reality is that it isn’t always going to happen. Sometimes the potential mother and the potential father are just going to want different things. And then you add onto… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

SomeDude

The crucial catch 22 for me with unwanted pregnancy choice and responsibility. It becomes all about what is best for the child after the mother has the final say in wether there is a child. All about the child seems to be in reality all about the woman acting in place of the child. There is no downside for a woman to fufill her desire to have a child at the expanse of someone else. If she can’t force a man to cover the expence she can pretty sure the state will cover for her. I feel your answer of… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

AnotherDude

Here’s what I think. If the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, I don’t think the man should have a say in it.

If the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn’t want to have the baby, he should not be liable for supporting the child. It must be incumbent on the woman to make an informed decision if she can look after the baby with her finances.

I think this makes it relatively fair for everyone concerned.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Jenna

“There is no downside for a woman to fufill her desire to have a child at the expanse of someone else. If she can’t force a man to cover the expence she can pretty sure the state will cover for her.” I think there are a lot of fundamental problems with this statement. My roommate is a single parent who had to move in with me b/c she couldn’t afford to cover her rent between the government grants and the half-assed always-late child support her ex sends. As an anecdote, I see a lot of problems she has to face–… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

John Anderson

@ Jenna “then suddenly demanding equal custody two months after a birth he did not attend, support, or acknowledge” I don’t see that as problematic. If a man has no control over a woman’s pregnancy he should have no obligations to her either. If he has obligations to the resulting child, then he should have rights to the child also. I see no contradiction. As far as men being coerced fathers, there is precedent for it. Women can put children up for adoption without the consent of the father at least in my state if she claims to not know… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

Copyleft

I suspect that a male birth control pill becoming commonly available will undermine, if not outright destroy, any widespread male opposition to the idea of contraception. Even the most selfish and arrogant man, confronted with an opportunity to put HIMSELF in control of whether he causes a pregnancy by choice, will opt for it.

All that will be left is a few religious and social reactionaries who condemn anyone having a choice, male or female.

I’d have thought the same thing about women and contraception…but there are plenty of women out there who are against it. After all…it was a woman who introduced the lovely Virginia bill that requires any woman who wants an abortion to first have a transvaginal ultrasound. And the bill passed. I know that’s abortion and not contraception…but you wouldn’t think a woman would have introduced it. I do hope, though, that you’re right and that when we do get a male pill, the majority of the opposition to it will disappear. What I seriously don’t get is men who argue… Read more »

Um…I also used the word transvaginal. It’s a silly word. Just think of that to cheer you up. 😉

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

DJ Shiva

“Men will, with certainly, be able to decide when they are ready to be a father without being told to just “keep it in their pants” which no one would ever DARE tell a woman.”

Really. Because the phrase “keep your legs closed” has NEVER been aimed at women in the history of anything ever. Except wrong.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

6 years ago

Guest

poester99

This has to be the biggest strawman beating I have ever read in my life! No young men are “patriarchal” any dregs of so called partriarchy are in old men and women who will soon be dead. People like this continue to escalate their private gender wars again men and boys who are on average much lower on the totem pole than them. They are indifferent to and seem to enjoy that unvoiced suffering. They are in fact kicking their male slaves while they are down, spitting on them and calling them oppressors. They are so used to having men… Read more »

The writer thinks those upset by the RC and others getting upset by the resistance to the regulation actually believe what they’re saying. Nobody is stupid enough to think this is other than the churches’ resistance to paying for what they think is a sin. Nobody is that stupid.
The writer misses the larger point. We have an election coming up. We are the brokest nation in history. And the Blob has us talking about contraception.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

Ok, I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been stated above. but point by point: 1 Patriarchy: Men are opposing the pill in order to control women? Firstly, its not just men. The anti contraceptive crowd are even fewer in number than pro-lifers, and as far as I’ve seen they tend to attract women about as much as men. Religious-right nuttery is an equal opportunity pastime. Secondly, I don’t think its about control. As little as I agree with them, and as much as I think its no business of theirs, I’m pretty sure their objection is a… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

Caveat: When I said its not about control I meant that its not about them controlling other’s lives for their benefit. Their desire to dictate the terms of other’s morality is very much a controlling behaviour.

As for insurance paying for it (even when it’s not medically necessary) and not condoms…my argument is to do with cost. Like I mentioned in another post somewhere, it costs a heck of a lot of money. If you’re insurance doesn’t pay for it, you might not be able to afford it. And if you can’t afford it, then you’re left without a hormonal form of birth control. And to be the best protected, people should use a hormonal and a barrier form of birth control. So it might not be medically necessary, but it’s damn responsible to use it.… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

I agree that its better to use it, but condoms are still a very reliable form of contraception. If they fail, theres the slightly more expensive morning after pill. If that fails there is, or should be, abortions. If there were no other reliable options then I agree wholeheartedly that the pill should be free. I think societies in which individuals choose when to become parents are better ones (I also extend this argument to the “male abortion”). But given that we have free condoms which do the job along with other options… it seems more like a luxury, and… Read more »

The problem with morning after pills and abortions is it’s not exactly preventative…it’s a bit after-the-fact. We should all be responsible when it comes to having sex, and that means sorting out contraception before having it. The other problem with them is that they are still quite controversial. I am pro-choice and sex positive…and yet if I were faced with an unwanted pregnancy I don’t know that I could get an abortion. Even the morning after pill is something I’m not quite sure I could do. Luckily I’ll never have to face that. But the thing with condoms, is that… Read more »

Agreed, fully. We need each gender having a fully reversible sterilization option such as Implanon and RISUG, AND encouraging condom use due to STD prevention (antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is on the rise), unless both partners are clearly in a mono relationship.

So tell me, why all the unfair resistance to male contraception? what does this say about a large percentage of modern day feminists?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Ed

I don’t like the feminist view of history. It for one assumes men paid no price for their role and that the position they held did not benefit women. When it came time for war it was men who were sent. When it came time to build the castle or wall around the city it was men who were sent to hard labor. When it came time to mine the coal, build the railway,or hammer massive solid stone blocks into marble pillars it was men. These were not glamorous office jobs and nearly all the population was illiterate. Feminist who… Read more »

I personally think this is the problem with using feminist history in this discussion….that ends up being the focus. But if you take the rhetoric aside, she’s making a valid point about how hormonal contraception is still not universally accepted in the U.S. I saw a statistic somewhere that something like 98% of women will use hormonal birth control at some point in their lives. So most women are using it, it’s not over-the-counter, and it costs a pretty penny to use. There is no excuse for it to not be covered by insurance.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

Yeah, its a shame, instead of talking about that, theres now a few thousand words of comments discussing “patriarchy.”

Well that depends on what method you’re using (pill, patch, IUD, injection) and then from that it depends on what brand. Some women can just use the cheapest and be fine, but the majority of the women I know had to go through a few options before they found something that didn’t screw them up in some way. So for me…I use a pill at it costs $75 a month (or at least, that was the cost of it 3 years ago. I’m not sure about it now). At the time I had insurance through my university, so I didn’t… Read more »

I’ve had to go through several different pills (years ago) to find one that didn’t make me feel ill/crazy. I’ve most usually had insurance so the pill for me has been as low as $10 per month but as high as $50 depending on the year/city/plan. That’s pricey at times. IUD’s are PAINFUL as hell to put in, some women react terribly to sponges, diaphraghs (yeast infections etc). I wish tubals could be reversed too. Hell that would be genius if both male and female teens could have some kind of easy “dont’ get knocked up” out patient deal (with… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

A couple of other thoughts, in response to the OP, rather than other comments. 1. Why doesn’t anybody remember Lionel Tiger’s book “The Decline of Males”? He predicted all of this, and more, more than a decade ago. 2. W/r/t the Roman Catholic Church, despite the OP’s belief that it has opposed birth control since forever, that is not, in fact, accurate. Doctrinally speaking, the RCC only took a position in 1968, with the publication of Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. And that, in turn, was based on the pronouncement of the doctrine, ex cathedra, of the Immaculate Conception (of… Read more »

Okey pokey…I’ve never read The Decline of Males. I’m curious as to what it said about insurance and contraception?

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

It says that female contraception utterly changes the game.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Eagle34

You said it better than I ever would, Jericha.

I’ll just add that I’m sick and tired of being lumped with the men at the top who have power and are actively working against women’s rights. This is why I hate the word “Patriarchy” because it inevitably leads some to assume every single living breathing male on this planet has access to some power and benefits from oppression of women everywhere.

You don’t gain allies that way. Much like Jericha has already stated in her closing argument.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Wirbelwind

Next time I hear about the right to free pills I will put a blaster pistol to my behavior core and pull the trigger.

Although I agree that biology did relegate women to the status of property in a majority of cultures for thousands of years, I don’t think it’s useful to the argument that is (I think) being made in this article to state that the majority of men therefore had a gleeful time profiting from the exploitation of women and their superior status as the sex in power. If men have historically enjoyed benefits denied to women, that’s not because most of them desired to gain at women’s expense, any more than me enjoying a box of strawberries picked by exploited migrant… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Richard Aubrey

It should be obvious–probably is–that if the RC are objecting to having to start paying for this, then they haven’t, to this point, been paying for it.
So the employees have adjusted without any obvious signs of trauma.
Not an issue, except for testing the limits of state fiat and how far the state can go. Using one of the most despised Designated Villain Group (DVG) for a test subject to reduce blowback by the non-involved.

Interestingly, from what I’ve heard, Catholic hospitals and universities have actually been covering this without a problem. Most of those institutions have come out and said that they don’t mind and that they do it anyway. It’s the bishops that are getting their knickers in a twist over this.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

Honestly, I think the number of catholics that actually object to contraception is pretty minimal. It only seems to be the upper ranks and the hard right-wingers that really seem to care.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

John D

Sara Robinson writes: “Men, in return, thrived. The ego candy they feasted on by virtue of automatically outranking half the world’s population was only the start of it. They got full economic and social control over our bodies, our labor, our affections, and our futures. They got to make the rules, name the gods we would worship, and dictate the terms we would live under. In most cultures, they had the right to sex on demand within the marriage, and also to break their marriage vows with impunity — a luxury that would get women banished or killed. As long… Read more »

Which is such a shame, because there are some truthful bits in this article. Unfortunately they’re all hidden under rhetoric.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Peter Houlihan

I agree, I was really prepared to love it until all the “all men have it good and just want to oppress women” stuff started kicking in.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

AnthonyZarat

Asking women to PAY for their own healthcare costs is not the same as prohibiting women from using health care. Does government pay for any of the (very few) male contraceptive options? No. Why should government pay for the hundreds of contraceptive options available to women?!? Every female contraceptive option was financed entirely by the public sector, including the pill. Big bad “patriarchy” invented the pill, along with the 100s of other contraceptive options available to women today. In contrast, how many contraceptive options for MEN did “patriarchy” finance? ZERO. This article is too wrong headed, misinformed, ignorant, and sexist… Read more »

Why does insurance cover prescription meds, but not over the counter? Cost, my man, cost. If I could buy my pills for less than $75 a week, then I’d totally be willing for it to not be covered by insurance. IUDs and injections require a doctor visit to be put in, which you have to pay for in it’s entirety if you don’t have insurance. I’m too old for teen centers where they will give you contraception for free. If/when there’s a male pill, then I’m all for that being covered, because goodness knows it won’t be cheap. Asking women… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Anthony Zarat

Insurance does not pay for vasectomy, which is much more expensive than any of the 100’s of contraceptives that are available to women.

Why does government pay for health insurance, but not life insurance?
Why does government pay for retirement insurance, but not for automobile insurance?

Answer: Government pays whenever the benefit predominantly goes to women. When the benefit would go to men, the answer is “step up, man up, shape up.”

I have no sympathy for you and your inability to pay for birth control pills. None.

Hmm…does insurance pay for a woman getting her tubes tied? If it does, and it doesn’t pay for a vasectomy, then it should pay for both. If it doesn’t pay for either…well then it should, but then it’s equally not paying for a woman or a man. The difference between health, life, retirement, and car insurance is not to do with gender. Both men and women use all of them. Car and life insurance weren’t originally viewed as absolutely necessary. Car insurance is now…but the reason it’s viewed as necessary is because it’s seen as protecting you in case you… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

JustAMan

Heather, In fact, the US Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare to some) provides that starting 8/1/12 female tubal ligation must be provided entirely free of cost (i.e. no co pay, no deductible) to all women, while also stating that vasectomy is subject to such co-pays and deductibles as the insurer may require. Men have no lobby. Vasectomy also is far less “uncomplicated” than the urologists, Planned Parenthood, etc. would have you believe. Up to 1/3 of all men who receive vasectomies suffer from constant pain, granulomas and/or auto-immune diseases. The reason is that after a vasectomy, whether scalpel or non-scalpel,… Read more »

I’m aware a vasectomy isn’t nearly as simple as is often presented, and I hope I didn’t suggest otherwise. Personally I think a vasectomy should be free of charge too. But so, okay, it seems like it’s multiple issues at play here. The fact that a vasectomy isn’t free points to the issue of treating men’s birth control options as less important. But the fact that the Catholic church is fighting to be exempt from paying for women’s birth control points to the issue of a rather patriarchal church trying to nudge its way into legislation in a secular legal… Read more »

Anyway, you said this: “I have no sympathy for you and your inability to pay for birth control pills. None.” – I think that’s a problem right there. Because I have great sympathy for you and the lack of a male birth control pill. I think it’s totally key that we try to view these situations from both sides.
If that is the problem then let’s ask?

@Anthony – How exactly did you get to the point where you no longer have sympathy for women and their inability to pay for birth control pills?

Ah just want to clarify that I said “a problem,” not “the problem.” I don’t mean to be nitpicky, but I don’t want you all to think I meant that it was the only problem (or the biggest problem) facing this issue of paying for birth control.

Anyway, yes thanks Danny, for asking the question I should have. So yeah although Danny asked it, I would like to know how you got to this point.

Goodness I just realized I said $75 a week instead of $75 a month in this post. Sorry about that.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Leia

There is a slight increased risk of breast cancer in users of the pill (enough to make me slightly regretful)….something to keep in mind….all medications have benefits and risks…. I guess if you really want something, then you will do everything you can to get it (i.e.., OC’s, narcotics, pot, etc.)….In my personal experience and connections, I was always able to get free samples of OC’s or at a very reduced rate through the student health clinic when I was young and relatively poor….The Catholic Church is easy to get around by stating that the pills are for irregular menses…… Read more »

You Must Be Logged In To Vote0You Must Be Logged In To Vote

7 years ago

Guest

Artemis

However, there is also a slight decreased risk of ovarian and uterine cancer, so it balances out.